What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927117 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4927117?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rental Income Due To Refusin…: $830.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927117?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927117?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10748271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927117 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4927117?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rental Income Due To Refusin…: $830.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927117?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927117?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10748271-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Road suppressed] Road, Pakuranga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927117 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927117 — net $1,280.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	14. The landlord paid a cleaner $850.00 to clean the premises.
Cleaning	$300.00	14. The landlord paid a cleaner $850.00 to clean the premises.
Loss of rental income due to refusing access	$830.00	Loss of rental income due to refusing access
Net award	$1,280.00
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,280.00

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Chung Soon Hew $1,280.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Chung Soon Hew: $1,280.00 [The tenants]: $1,640.00

Reasons

Heather Stevenson attended the hearing for the landlord.
[A tenant and his sister] attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning, and for loss of rental income due to the tenants refusing access to the premises for viewings by prospective tenants.
The tenants seek refund of the bond.

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

Legal principles

At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 That duty is similar to the landlord’s duty to provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 2
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard of an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, or hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to a higher standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 3
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord produced scores of photographs of the premises taken after the tenancy ended, showing that there were some deficits in cleaning such as failing to clean the windowsills, skirting boards, bathroom fittings, and some floor areas.
The tenants also submitted a video and some photographs that show the premises were clean in many respects. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
Both parties’ evidence showed that one of the bedroom’s carpets had several bad stains. Ms Stevenson also submitted photographs of insect detritus that she says were from a maggot that was infesting the carpets.
Having viewed all of the images and heard the parties’ evidence and submissions, I find that the bedroom’s carpets were in need of carpet cleaning and that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The landlord paid a carpet cleaner $287.50 for cleaning all of the premises’ carpets. A bedroom’s carpets were very dirty. However, I am not persuaded that the carpets were infested by fault of the tenants. I order the tenants to contribute $150.00 towards the carpet cleaning expense.
The landlord paid a cleaner $850.00 to clean the premises. The tenants made a decent effort to clean the premises. It was not in a terrible condition of cleanliness by any means. However, there was an accumulation of small oversights such as failing to clean the windowsills that added up to a modest shortfall in meeting the standard. I consider that it is fair to order the tenants to contribute $300.00 towards the cost of cleaning.

Did the tenants fail to provide reasonable access for prospective tenants?

Ms Stevenson says the landlord kindly allowed the tenants to terminate the tenancy on only 21 days’ notice rather than the statutory minimum of 28 days. However, after the landlord had advertised the premises, attracting interest from a number of prospective tenants, the tenants categorically refused the landlord’s request for viewings. Ms Stevenson says as a result, the interested tenants were lost.
The tenants say they were concerned that the prospective tenants might steal some of their possessions, which were so numerous they could not be safely stowed away.
Under RTA, s 48(3A) a tenant in this situation: (a) may not withhold his or her consent unreasonably; and (b) may make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
The tenants’ blanket refusal to allow viewings at any time whatsoever was unreasonable. The tenants’ concerns about theft of their belongings could have been met by, for example, asking the property manager to carefully supervise prospective tenants, or by one of the tenants being present during any viewing.
Because the landlord could not show tenants through the premises, it could not secure new tenants for about one month after the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the landlord suffered a loss of rental income as a result of the tenants’ refusal.
The Tribunal orders the tenants to reimburse the landlord for one week’s lost rental income. Non-publication
The tenants seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their application by securing a significant portion of the bond. I do not consider that publication is justified by the tenants’ conduct or is in the public interest.
Non-publication is allowed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927117 — net $1,280.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	14. The landlord paid a cleaner $850.00 to clean the premises.
Cleaning	$300.00	14. The landlord paid a cleaner $850.00 to clean the premises.
Loss of rental income due to refusing access	$830.00	Loss of rental income due to refusing access
Net award	$1,280.00
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,280.00

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Chung Soon Hew $1,280.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Chung Soon Hew: $1,280.00 [The tenants]: $1,640.00

Reasons

Heather Stevenson attended the hearing for the landlord.
[A tenant and his sister] attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, carpet cleaning, and for loss of rental income due to the tenants refusing access to the premises for viewings by prospective tenants.
The tenants seek refund of the bond.

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

Legal principles

At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 That duty is similar to the landlord’s duty to provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 2
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard of an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, or hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to a higher standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 3
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord produced scores of photographs of the premises taken after the tenancy ended, showing that there were some deficits in cleaning such as failing to clean the windowsills, skirting boards, bathroom fittings, and some floor areas.
The tenants also submitted a video and some photographs that show the premises were clean in many respects. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
Both parties’ evidence showed that one of the bedroom’s carpets had several bad stains. Ms Stevenson also submitted photographs of insect detritus that she says were from a maggot that was infesting the carpets.
Having viewed all of the images and heard the parties’ evidence and submissions, I find that the bedroom’s carpets were in need of carpet cleaning and that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The landlord paid a carpet cleaner $287.50 for cleaning all of the premises’ carpets. A bedroom’s carpets were very dirty. However, I am not persuaded that the carpets were infested by fault of the tenants. I order the tenants to contribute $150.00 towards the carpet cleaning expense.
The landlord paid a cleaner $850.00 to clean the premises. The tenants made a decent effort to clean the premises. It was not in a terrible condition of cleanliness by any means. However, there was an accumulation of small oversights such as failing to clean the windowsills that added up to a modest shortfall in meeting the standard. I consider that it is fair to order the tenants to contribute $300.00 towards the cost of cleaning.

Did the tenants fail to provide reasonable access for prospective tenants?

Ms Stevenson says the landlord kindly allowed the tenants to terminate the tenancy on only 21 days’ notice rather than the statutory minimum of 28 days. However, after the landlord had advertised the premises, attracting interest from a number of prospective tenants, the tenants categorically refused the landlord’s request for viewings. Ms Stevenson says as a result, the interested tenants were lost.
The tenants say they were concerned that the prospective tenants might steal some of their possessions, which were so numerous they could not be safely stowed away.
Under RTA, s 48(3A) a tenant in this situation: (a) may not withhold his or her consent unreasonably; and (b) may make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions.
The tenants’ blanket refusal to allow viewings at any time whatsoever was unreasonable. The tenants’ concerns about theft of their belongings could have been met by, for example, asking the property manager to carefully supervise prospective tenants, or by one of the tenants being present during any viewing.
Because the landlord could not show tenants through the premises, it could not secure new tenants for about one month after the tenancy ended.
I am satisfied that the landlord suffered a loss of rental income as a result of the tenants’ refusal.
The Tribunal orders the tenants to reimburse the landlord for one week’s lost rental income. Non-publication
The tenants seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4
The tenants have substantially succeeded in their application by securing a significant portion of the bond. I do not consider that publication is justified by the tenants’ conduct or is in the public interest.
Non-publication is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927117 — Cleanliness at [Road suppressed] Road, Pakuranga, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927117 — Cleanliness at [Road suppressed] Road, Pakuranga, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the tenants fail to provide reasonable access for prospective tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the tenants fail to provide reasonable access for prospective tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions